ML20153B590
| ML20153B590 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1998 |
| From: | Lubbe T, Ortiz F POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153B557 | List: |
| References | |
| [[::JAF-RPT-MULTI|JAF-RPT-MULTI]], JAF-RPT-MULTI-0, JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, JAF-RPT-MULTI-3000, NUDOCS 9809230185 | |
| Download: ML20153B590 (46) | |
Text
. .- . .. -.. . - - . - - _ - _ - - . . _ . _ . - . . - -_ - .- . . . .
Attachmsnt 4 to JAFP-98-0306 ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modificatio_q i SuoDiement to the Plant Unlaue Analysis Report (PUAR) l l
l l
l k
New York Power Authority JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Docket No. 50-333 l DPR-59 l 9809230185 990916U .l PDR ADOCK 05000333 e PDRl
New York Power Authority .
Project: JAF ECCS Suction Strainer Project Vendor / Contractor Duke Engineering & Services Calculation No. 313F-R'PT-th vL TI-83000, Rev 1 Modification No. F1-98-100 NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS STATUS NO:
1 .Q ACCEr.~S 2 O ACCEP.co AS NOTED RESUBMITTAL NOT REQUmED 3 O ACCEPTED AS NOTED RESU5MITTAL REQUtRED 4 O NOT ACCEPTED Panssion to proceed does not coregue accoomnce of appnwel of deegn i deeds, calculanons anam test memods or rnaertais deveoped or se6eced by the supplier and does not reileve suponer from fut compliance we conesas negoomens.
REVIEWED BY: 4tdirl.hT!TLE:E@ft.0%')A.dd.S.
(,adt Lhonvi , A, oArE:...]
- 2 > '1 Y v
Comments: b,esN I
Note: Do not remove this sheet from the cover of the above identified calculation.
a i
i NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant i
l
- ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement l l Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis l Report
< l I
l l
l REPORT No: JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000 Revision Date Prepared By: Reviewed By:
i 0 6/24/98 Kevin J. Hausman James E. Neurauter !
- 1 7/22/98 Tim ' , .Lubbe rancisco C. Ortiz i i
'M r
i a
1
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement ta the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 l
I 1
Tahle of Contente
' 1. e Purpo se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 Description of Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 Containment Structure Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Loads on Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2 Ring Girder Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3 Torus Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.0 Torus Attached Piping Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1 Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2 Piping Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.1 Torus Motion Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.2 Submerged Structure Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 l
4.2.3 Deadweight, Thermal and Seismic Loads . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 4.3 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.4 Torus Attached Piping Analysis Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5 Torus M**ehad Piping Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6 Pump and Valve Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
' 4.7 Torus Penetration Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.8 Small Bore Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.0 - Pipe Support Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.1 C odes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 5.2 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.3 Analysis Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.4 Evaluation ofIntegral Welded Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.5 Support Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.0 : - References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9
' Attachment A: Mark Up of PUAR Affected Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A l - A8 4
4 Page 2 of 31 J
, ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 1.0 Purpose As part of the response to NRC Bulletin 96-03 (Reference 18) , Fitzpatrick Station has selected to install large capacity, passive strainers on the ECCS (RHR, Core Spray, HPCI), and RCIC suction lines inside the suppression pool (torus). Specifically, the strainers are attnched at penetrations X-225A & B, X-227A & B, X-226, and X-224 (RHR, Core Spray, HPCI, and RCIC respectively). The analysis of the strainers and reanalysis of the ECCS and RCIC piping falls
- under the jurisdiction of the Mark I Program. This report will document the design nd analysis of the strainers and the ECCS and RCIC piping performed in support of this modification.
g 2
The intent of the re-analysis effort was to utilize the originally developed Mark I calculations performed by Teledyne to the extent possible as design input. The Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR)(References 2 and 3) and supporting calculations documented the development of the ;
Mark I loads and subsequent analysis.
The ECCS and RCIC piping was analyzed during the Mark I Containment Long Tent Program (LTP) in accordance with NUREG-0661 (Reference 1). The original ECCS and RCIC torus suction inlets had small cantilevered strainers attached the penetration nozzle. Since the h l j
installation of the new strainers involves adding piping and components inside the torus, new ,
hydrodynamic load generation and reanalysis were required. The new load generation and l piping system analysis follows the existing methodologies used by TES and documented in the i
. PUAR to the extent practical. Summarized in this supplement to the PUAR is a brief summary !
of the analysis which emphasizes any techniques used by DE&S which differ from the original plant unique analysis.
l I
i
. Page 3 of 31
, ECCS and RCIC Suetion Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 2.0 Description of Modifications The modification (Reference 19) replaces the four existing cantilevered strainers on the RHR and CS suction lines (Penetratiora X-225A&B and X-227A&B) and the two existing cantilevered strainers on the HPCI and RCIC suction lines (Penetrations X-226 and X-224). /j\
See Figure 2-1 for a summary of the replacement configuration.
X-225A & B 24" RHR Suction Lines - new stacked disk strainer assembly which spans multiple torus bays (35' of stacked disk strainers) and includes new supports which are attached to the torus ring girders. See Figure 2-2 for the detailed RHR strainer assembly configurations X-227A & B 16" Core Spray Suction Lines - new stacked disk strainer assembly which spans half of a torus bay between the penetration and ring girder and a cantilevered section which protrudes into the next bay (10' of stacked disk strainers) Each assembly includes a new support which is attached to the torus ring girder. See Figure 2-3 for the detailed Core Spray strainer assembly configurations .
l X-226 16" HPCI Suction Lines - new stacked disk strainer usembly which is a cantilevered section which protrudes out directly from the penetration. See Figure 2-4 for the detailed HPCI strainer assembly configurations X-224 6" RCIC Suction Lines -new stacked disk strainer assembly which is a cantilevered section which protrudes out directly from the penetration. See Figure 2-5 for the detailed RCIC strainer assembly configurations b I
4 Page 4 of 31
. i
' ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Uniqu: Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 Figure 2-1: ECCS Suction Strainer Locations (see Drawing A384-TORUS) l l
~\ ..
I g OO OO 9 ,
(8 N oOO OOo O n O
- O l o
o g,
O
- o. g -
,_, o.
O O
, <>.. .. O g O O t
O O
% ) O O ( - g===
> o - -- -
~
o .
.- ,. o - . . .
O .. .- 1
) U" ' O (
O O
,, .. C O O l '
o .. , .O '
<3
.I O L'=f O O I O L':::::'
o ,,
,s O U i l
0 O o o oo ooO O O.OO OO U 2 **'
-- I
=aus uan Page 5 of 31
s .
, ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Repiscement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report l- Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 Figure 2-2: RHR Suction Strainer Assembly (see Drawing A384-X225A) 4 i
W 4
Nu
~
- ../1Y/ .
./ e.
we. e==, g,p V \
e s
~-
s z
i Q-; 9 p ;7-- " y.9t 0 -
_. r . ,
4 Lg,.# "#.
==N
. .. . v p.pn '
RHR SUL,10N STRAINFR PLAN VIFW - Y-77SA
. n .:,
l l
l i
I Page 6 of 31 j
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supptrment to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 Figure 2-3: Core Spray Suction Strainer Assembly (See Drawing A384-X227A)
D i
,.. e
-- re f -.. /
=-
f,--- g- - --
(trR)
.p .
,I -.. .--. .--- -- . -_- .-- ._-- .--. ..- - - - - .
Q
.______________________"('l _
j/i ifRifa&2'Rirr,7%
RiRc rom Ct 5"*"
- y. .
(xisnNoo.ru!.
rt . . ir RING CIRD(R q iomus sa f
.=JL *;'"c;,"*""'~'
i
- . . _ - _ . ir-a- = _.
CORE SPRAY STRAINER PLAN sCe n .i r -
(ALL O!WCNsl0NS ARC r04 REFERENCE ONLY)
Page 7 of 31
.. = _ - _ .- - - - .-. - . . - .
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplem:nt to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 Figure 2-4: HPCI Suction Strainer Assembly )
(See Drawing A384-X226) l I
14 -9 R
\
S.l' 4
- s. N Ns ,
TORUS
% ; k N
(+,
)
N. .
N, g,
(
b
) N
. N f
.N s 30.O* (REF)
N
'\-s s, 43' (REF)
'N.
3
> N-RT s'N
/N h,* 4e My SECTION A- A SCALE: 0* = 1 *- 0" Page 8 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Suppl 3 ment to the Plant Unique Analysis Report !
Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000. Revision 1 Figure 2-5: RCIC Suction Strainer Assembly ;
(See Drawing A384-X224)
TORUS " TORUS 14*-9" R (REF)
',p '
b,#e 'o.
s
'\ 4 s
\ 3
\.
'+ ,h fs
@(
SEE DETAll B
\ 55' (REF) ;
@k' t
./
2 \
- s. ,
N 3.,
EXISTING \ l NOZZLE \ l
\
9e * \,
)
l A- A g SECTION SCALE: 0" = 1 * - o" Page 9 of 31 ;
A ECCS and RCIC Suction Strain:r Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report i Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 )
. 1
. 3.0 Containment Structure Evaluation i
3.1 Loads on Containment The installation of the new larger ECCS and RCIC strainers do not have any effect on the definition of the Mark I hydrodynamic loads acting on both the torus shell and ring girders g i i
(Reference 7).
4 3.2 Ring Girder Evaluation The RHR and Core Spray strainer supports are attached to the torus ring girder thus the ring girder must be qualified for the piping reaction loads (Reference 17). The 8 strainer supports i have two.different configurations.
l RHR Strainer Center Supports X-225A-S2 and X-225B-S2. These supports are attached to the top face of the ring girder flange and also reinforce the ring girder with 8 new gusset plates and flange cover plates. See Figure 3-1 for RHR center support details. 1 RHR Strainer End Supports X-225A-S1 & S3, X-225B-SI & S3, Core Spray Supports X-227A-S1 and X-227B-SI. These supports are attached to the top surface of the flange and are shown in Figure 3-2. !
The RHR and Core Spray support reaction loads were qualified by constructing a 1/16 torus shell model which runs from midbay to midbay of two adjacent torus bays. The model includes a
' detailed plate model of both the ring girder and saddle support which is located 3.5" from the miterjoint. The columns were modelled as beam elements. This model uses actual Fitzpatrick l
' torus, ring girder and support dimensions including a corrosion allowance of 0.1" on the torus i shell. The original analysis (Paragraph 5.2 of Reference 2) used a conservative, generic ring girder configuration. The results of the additional reaction loads were added absolutely to the a existing torus and ring girder stresses.
l The stresses were evaluated to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, '
Subsection NE,1977 Edition with addenda up to and including Summer 77. This is consistent with the original plant unique analysis.
d
! Page 10 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification ,
Supplem nt to the Plant Unique Analysis Report 4
Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 i
)
! The results of this evaluation are:
[ Component Stress Type Stress (ksi) Allowable (ksi) 3 RG Flange Local Membrane 27.37 28.95 i
Primary + Secondary 65.88 68.94 to Stress Range RG Web Local Membrane 15.89 28.95
, Primary + Secondary 60.48 68.94(0
- Stress Range c RG to Shell Weld Shear 18.33 19.90 )
Support Base Plate Local Membrane 26.67 28.95
} Primary + Secondary 53.34 68.94 (0 ,
L Stress Range I i Gusset Plates Local Membrane 26.36 28.95 Primary + Secondary 53.12 68.94(O I Stress Range j See Section 3.3 for results on the Torus Shell.
(1) The Teledyne analysis of the torus shell and ring girder used an allowable of 69.9 ksi which corresponds to Smi=23.3 ksi at 100' F. Conservatively the analysis used the ;
allowable of 68.94 ksi which corresponds to S,i=22.98 ksi at 220 F. The use of allowables at 220* F (design temperature from Reference 20) is conservative since the governing loads occur at temperatures below 200"F.
4 Page11of31
. . ~ . - . . . --
, ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacem:nt Modification Suppl: ment to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 Figure 3-1: RHR Strainer Middle Support (See Drawing A384-X225A-S2)
+l% .
s;4
- b, LSA-t 2 s.
O" \ g 'g ir, 2 Ptes s scc wort J/ ny
[.-. 's .
g /a - '
scc otrAit c g p
\
< .1 \ ':
\y'l N \/
rrP s nN \, - '. ./'
- 2 PtCsf ny '
/
us oR P,
' NE c"E0 Ee) P.,y
\,
s ser
)
\
, jfgMth"l%
of 55A-2 > l'iW 2
'*5 5"E" g,g[)
p *" ,
is / s!DCs
,.*# h > q ut OR Pi scc
'f'A Pg NOTc 12 PcPF'iNDlCJtAR NP4PtCs V ?5(* b'$
g { g ganc,, ELEVATION VIEW -
??"# so"Mi/Pl" '"
Page 12 of 31
.. . .. = . . - _ -. .-
, ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 Figure 3-2: RHR/ Core Spray Strainer End Support (See Drawing A384-X225A-SI)
LSA 1 4
c not th ny . 4 4['s\., .
s scconan o A ,
g, / ,
N. - [
f
/ \T ', ,.
s.
y, ,
4 g fPLC$) \.
scc wort urn so.
k N \
TrP cAcH cNof Pr\< .
p.y
"' g\ \
p,u,1 "5 5"'"
. ., . E#0"?S"Es -s A
r
[
- i
.\
ss4. >
5!I)
= - /WP ur oR Pg nV N2 stocs
--. - .,..- ,p (scc wort n p
x @
/
4 ELEVATION VIEW 1
Page 13 of 31
' ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification SupplemInt to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 3.3 Torus Evaluation The general torus shell analysis was not affected by the addition of the ECCS and RCIC strainers (Reference 7). Local stress evaluations were performed for the effects of the strainer support g
reaction loads on the ring girder and the penetration nozzles.
The torus shell stresses were evaluated to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Subsection NE,1977 Edition with addenda up to and including Summer 77. This was consistent with the original plant unique analysis.
Conservatively the local shell stress intensities due to the strainer support reaction loads on the ring girders were conservatively combine ' absolutely with the maximum shell stresses summarized in Section 3.3.1 of the "L.d (Reference 2). These stresses include a 0.1" corrosion allowance for the torus shell. The maximum local shell stresses are:
4 Primary Local Membrane Stress = 13.94 ksi < 28.95 ksi Primary Local Membrane + Bending Stress = 21.63 ksi < 28.95 ksi l
Primary Plus Secondary Stress Range = 60.20 ksi < 68.94 ksi m
. (1) The Teledyne analysis of the torus shel! and ring girder used an allowable of 69.9 ksi which corresponds to Smi=23.3 ksi at 100* F. Conservatively the' analysis useu the allowable of 68.94 ksi which corresponds to S i=22.98 ksi at 220* F. The use of allowables at 220* F (design temperature from Reference 20) is conservative since the governing loads occur at temperatures below 200 F.
Page 14 of 31 L _ _ _ _ _
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Peport Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 4.0 Torus Attached Piping Evaluation d
4.1 Codes The torus attached piping was evaluated to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure 4
Vessel Code, Subsection NC,1977 Edition with addenda up to and including Summer 77. This was consistent with the original plant unique analysis.
4.2 Piping Loads The RHR, Core Spray, and HPCI piping were analyzed for Mark I torus motion load, Mark I submerged structure loads, deadweight, thermal and seismic loads. Summarized below are the details of the load analysis methodology and load development used to analyze the torus attached piping. The replacement of the RCIC strainers was determined to have an insignificant impact on the existing RCIC piping analysis (See Reference 27). A truncated model was used to compare the dynamic response of the piping with the new strainers to the dynamic response of the piping with the old strainers (as modeled). It was determined that the change in mass and center of gravity (including water mass) was small enough that the dynamic response of the attached piping would not be significantly affected.
g 4.2.1 Torus Motion Loads
, The torus attached piping was analyzed for Pool Swell, Condensation Oscillation (CO),
Chugging and SRV torus motion loads using force time histories calculated from the clean shell torus displacements. The methodology was consistent with the TES plant unique analysis for all piping except the P HR torus internal strainer piping. The RHR torus internal piping was analyzed using disp'acement time histories since the RHR torus internal piping is decoupled from the external torus attacheJ piping and use of force time histories is not appropriate for the decoupled internal strainer model. The time histories used were calculated from the penetration reaction load time history results and are the envelope of both the X-225A and X-225B TES evaluation. The use of displacement time histories is consistent with the requirements of the PUAAG(Reference 6) which simply states that dynamic effects of torus motion at the attachment point will be considered using either response spectrum or time history analysis.
4.2.2 Submerged Structure Loads Load Development The Mark I hydrodynamic loads on submerged structures were developed by TES in accordance with the methods of the LDR (Reference 5), NUREG-0661 and the TES in-plant SRV tests as documented in Appendix 1 of the PUAR (Reference 2) and include CO + FSI Drag Loads, Post Chugging + FSI Drag Loads, Pre Chugging Drag, SRV Bubble and Jet loads, Pool Swell Bubble Drag and Pool Swell Fall Back loads.
. Page 15 of 31
, ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 The development of the submerged structure loads for the RHR, Core Spray, and HPCI strainers follows the requirements of the LDR, NUREG-0661 and the PUAR except for the use of reduced acceleration drag volumes to account for holes in the stacked disk strainer assemblies.
Acceleration drag loads on submerged structures are proportional to the acceleration drag volume of the structure. From the Application Guides (References 13,14 & 15) the acceleration drag volume for cross flow on a solid cylinder including hydrodynamic mass effects is 2nR2L and (8/3)R3 for a circular disk with no thickness for axial flow. The original plant unique analysis (PUAR References 2 & 3) and GE Application Guides do not provide guidance on modeling perforated structures.
Acceleration drag tests were performed on the Performance Contracting Incorporated (PCI) prototype strainer assemblies by DE&S to establish the total inertial mass that will act on the strainer when vibrating in water (Reference 22). The theoretical acceleration drag volume for a cylinder with no holes is 2.0 times the displaced water volume (2nR2L). The tested strainer, although basically cylindrical in shape, has holes that allow water to pass thereby reducing the effective added mass. Tests were performed on a suction strainer comparing the same shape with '
and without holes. For the tested strainer, conservatively the total added water mass was found to be 50% of the values obtained for the same shape without holes (1.0/2.0 = 0.50). The 50%
value is based on the tested strainer that had 1/8" diameter holes and a 40% open area. The geometry, including stacked disk width and gap width for the Fitzpatrick strainers are consistent
- with the tested strainers, however the Fitzpatrick strainers only have 33% open area. It is expected that less open area would lead to a greater attached volume of water. Considering that 0% open area results in no reduction and 40% open area results in a 50% reduction, conservatively a 25% reduction could be used on the Fitzpatrick strainers (Reference 16). Thus, the acceleration drag volume for the Fitzpatrick strainers was conservatively taken as 75% of theoretical acceleration drag volume for an equivalent solid cylinder (C, = 1.5).
For HPCI and RCIC, based on subsequent testing, it was decided that the added conservatism in k i(from 0.59 to 0.75) was not warranted and a ki = 0.60 was used. In addition to the ki factor, a
' k2factor was also determined, based on standard industry rules, to account for the end effects of flow around the ends of the strainer. Since the HPCI and RCIC strainers are relatively short, the end effects term becomes significant. For HPCI an end effects reduction factor (k2) was found to be 0.915 while for RCIC, the a factor of k 2= 0.705 was used. The total effective C, can then be taken as 2ki2 k , or for HPCI C, = 1.10, and for RCIC C, = 0.85 (Reference 16). It should be noted that using the emperical equations determined in Reference 29, C, for the HPCI and RCIC strainers would be predicted to be around 0.5 or less.
Subsequent to the detailed Core Spray and HPCI piping analysis, supplemental runs were made for certain load cases using a C = 0.75 for the strainers based on References 8,9 and 26. This analysis was performed explicitly to determine more accurate values for the motor operated valve ,
accelerations. The fmal reported valve accelerations for the MOV-7A and 7B and MOV-58 ;
valves were based on there supplemental analyses. b 1 l
l Page 16 of 31 ,
I
. _ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . __ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ - _ _ _
, ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification .
Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1
)
Load Application )
The SRV Bubble and Jet loads, Pool Swell Bubble Drag and Pool Swell Fall Back loads were !
applied statically as done previously by TES to the strainers using the appropriate DLFs from ;
Section 3.3.6.2 of the PUAR (Reference 3). <
The CO and Post Chugging Drag loads including FSI effects were analyzed by TES by applying response spectra to the strainers, absolutely combining the results of the four largest frequency responses with the SRSS of the remaining frequencies. This total load was then applied statically at the torus penetrations to determine the CO and Chugging drag loads on the penetrations and external piping. Pre Chug loads were not applied because they were determined to be bounded by Post Chugging or CO loads.
DEAS applied the direct CO and Chugging drag loads as a series of harmonic loads input into the program PSHRMIC. The individual harmonic results were then combined using the absolute sum of the four highest harmonics for CO and the absolute sum of the 5 highest harmonics for Post Chugging along with the SRSS of the remaining harmonics. This methodology for Post Chugging drag loads is consistent with the original analysis as shown in Mark I Safety i Evaluation Report (SER, Reference 23). The FSI loads were analyzed as force time histories ;
using acceleration results from the torus shell analysis and were added absolutely to the direct CO and Chugging drag loads. The torus shell acceleration time histories were developed by using numerical methods to take the second derivative of the radial torus shell displacements.
- Pre Chugging drag loads were only applied to the RHR strainer assembly model since the RHR system modes fell within the critical Pre Chugging frequency band.
4.2.3 Deadweight, Thermal and Seismic Loads The TES analysis performed the thermal expansion loads at the original design thermal 4
conditions of the various systems and applied thermal anchor movements of the torus which were calculated using the maximum torus operating temperature for all loading conditions. Seismic' loads were analyzed using response spectra from the FSAR.
The DE&S analysis used actual accident operation conditions obtained from the containment response curves found in the PULD and a Post-LOCA long term temperature of 220* F per design specificatian JAF-SPEC-MISC-02871 (Reference 20). This was acceptable since NUREG-0661 states that actual operating conditions can be used. Seismic response spectra from UFSAR Section 12.4.6 & 12.5 along with Design Criteria 18570.0 were used as specified per Reference 20. Note, the RHR piping was analyzed using static seismic coefficients from UFSAR Table 16.7-4. The use of static coefficients was consistent with the analysis of other to:us intemal structures.
7 Page 17 of 31
t ' ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 4
L 4.3 Load Combinations The original TES analysis as documented in the PUAR (Reference 3) combined all Mark I loads absolutely and when necessary combined the absolute sum of the Mark I loads with the seismic loads by SRSS. The governing dynamic load combinations were determined to be:
Combination Service Level I SRV or OBE B SRV + OBE j
C 6
j- CO/ CHUG + SSE D Zero Pressure Differential Pool Swell D Pool Swell + SRV D Post Chug + SRV D 9
In the structural analysis for the new strainer assemblies, independent dynamic loads were combined using the Square Root Sum of the Squares (SRSS) method. This method was actually used as stated in the RHR, Core Spray, and HPCI calculations on certain components in the original analysis on an as needed basis. Use of the SRSS method differs from statements contained in the current revision of the Fitzpatrick Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) and subsequent SER. These documents state that the Mark I dynamic piping loads were combined by absolute sum. Combining piping system responses from independent dynamic loads by the SRSS method has been shown in NEDE-24632 (Reference 21) to meet the requirements of Paragraph 4.4.3 of NUREG-0661. NUREG-0661 states that, as an alternative to absolute sum combinations,' the cumulative distribution function method (CDF) may be used on a component l specific basis to combine independent dynamic loads and the CDF combined stress values must ('
show a nonexceedance probability of 84%. NEDE-24632 used the CDF methods to show that the SRSS combination ofindependent Mark I dynamic loads has a nonexceedance probability of at
- least 84%. Based on the review of NEDE-24632, the NRC has accepted the use of the SRSS 1 combination of piping system responses due to independent dynamic loads, as documented in Reference 4. This method has been widely used throughout the industry on Mark I plants and has been accepted by the NRC. l i
Additionally the requirements of NUREG-0661 Figure 4.3-2 were reviewed to develop both a less conservative and more accurate set of dynamic load combinations. The following bounding l
dynamic load combinations were developed. These dynamic loads are added to the deadweight, i thermal and pressure loads as required by the ASME Code.
Page 18 of 31
. 1 ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report l Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 l l
l Dynamic Load Combination Service Level
, SRV B 4
OBE B
- (SRV2 + SSE2)in C I
- . (SRV2 + Post Chug2 )in C (SRV2 + Pre Chug2 )'8 C (SRV2 + Post Chug2 + SSE2)in 9 i- (SRV2 + Pre Chug2 + SSE2)in 9 i
Zero Pressure Differential Pool Swell D
- (SRV2 + Pool Swell 2 + SSE2)in 9 i (CO2 + OBE2)in 9 )
j Note that the loads listed as SRV, Pool Swell, CO, Pre Chug and Post Chug are the absolute sum of the torus motion loads and the submerged structure loads including FSI for CO and Chugging.
Conservatively, the maximum of OBE and SSE is used for SSE in the load combinations.
4.4 Torus Attached Piping Analysis Methodologies
~
The Torus attached piping analysis were performed using the following DE&S computer )
[' programs.
i PISTAR General purpose piping analysis program PSHRMIC Piping harmonic analysis program j PSUP PISTAR post processor for support load combinations i PISTAR Modified PISTAR Version 4.1.2 (Reference 28) g ;
The torus attached piping (Core Spray) was generally modelled using the same techniques employed by TES in the original Mark I analysis of the piping except for the following:
1 Stiffnesses for external supports were updated to match the generic stiffnesses required j for JAF piping as specified in Reference 24.
Valve weights were reviewed and updated for consistency between the two Core Spray models (penetrations X-227A &B).
The Core Spray models (penetrations X-227A&B) were modified at the pump nozzle attachment to more accurately model the actual configuration of the pump and the piping attachments. ,
Page 19 of 31 i
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report T
Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 I 4.5 Torus Attached Piping Evaluation Results i
i Piping stresses were evaluated to the requirements of the ASME B&PV Code, Subsection NC.
Summarized below are the maximum stresses for the RHR, Core Spray, and HPCI piping. These i
results supersede the results shown in Table 3-1 of Reference 3.
A
, Line Stress (ksi) Allowable (ksi)
RHR Pump Suction - Torus Internal Strainer Piping 29.26 36.00 Penetrations X-225A & B Core Spray Suction Piping - Penetration X-227A 29.91 36.00 Core Spray Suction Piping - Penetration X-227B 30.08 35.00 HPCI Suction Piping Penetration X-226 17.46 21.36 Note since the RHR strainer model was decoupled from the torus attached external piping, the external piping results were not affected by this modification.
l 1
i i
1 1
Page 20 of 31 1
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification
, Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 4.6 Pump and Valve Evaluation t Consistent with the TES analysis the stresses in the attached piping directly adjacent to pump nozzles and valves were limited to Level B pipe stress allowables. Summarized below are the stresses for the Core Spray Models (References 8 & 9) for piping adjacent to pumps and valves.
These results supersede the results shown in Table 3-4 of Reference 3. Note RHR results are not affected since the external piping was decoupled from the torus intemal piping.
Component Stress (ksi) Allowable (ksi)
Core Spray Pump 14P-1 A 12.03 18.00 Valve 14MOV-7A 11.53 18.00 ,
Valve VGW-ISAN 2.83 18.00 (N.155-165)
. Valve VCW-15AN 3.09 18.00 (N. 330-340)
Core Spray Pump 14P-1B 17.19 18.00 Valve 14MOV-7B 11.18 18.00 Valve VGW-ISAN 3.08 18.00 HPCI Booster Pump 23 P-1 10.47 18.00 Valve MOV/58 16.34 18.00 Valve MOV/57 5.63 18.00 Valve MOV/17 10.19 18.00 Valve VCW-15AN (N.125) 4.40 18.00 Valve VCW-ISAN (N. 425) 4.58 18.00 b Additionally, motor operated valve accelerations were transmitted to NYPA (Fitzpatrick) for evaluation under their GL 89-10 program. .
. Page 21 of 31 6 __ -__s _ __ - . . - - -
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplem:nt to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 4.7 Torus Penetration Evaluation Torus penetrations were evaluated using WRC 107 methodology consistent with the TES analysis. Summarized below are the maximum penetrations stresses for the RHR, Core Spay, and HPCI penetrations (References 8,9,10, and 26). These results supersede the results shown in Table 3-6 of Reference 3.
Penetration Stress Type Stress Allowable X-225A Local Membrane 22.25 ksi 28.95 ksi Primary + Secondary 67.99 ksi 69.3 ksi(O Stress Range Nozzle Stress 13.72 ksi 28.95 ksi Fatigue Usage 0.67 1.00 X-225B - Local Membrane 23.64 28.95 ksi Primary + Secondary 68.86 69.3 ksi(O Stress Range Nozzle Stress 13.70 28.95 ksi Fatigue Usage- 0.67 1.00 X-227A Local Membrane 23.13 ksi 28.95 ksi Primary + Secondary 64.47 ksi 69.0 ksi(O Stress Range Nozzle Stress 21.12 ksi 28.95 ksi Fatigue Usage 0.56 1.00 X-227B Local Membrane 23.37 ksi 28.95 ksi Primary + Secondary 65.13 ksi 69.0 ksi(O Stress Range Nozzle Stress 21.66 ksi 28.95 ksi Fatigue Usage 0.50 1.00 Page 22 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 Penetration Stress Type Stress Allowable j i
X-226 Local Membrane 23.39 ksi 28.95 ksi t Primary + Secondary 67.98 ksi 69.9 ksi !
Stress Range 1
Nozzle Stress 16.21 ksi 19.30 ksi Fatigue Usage 0.53 1.00 (1) The Teledyne analysis of the torus shell and ring girder used an allowable of 69.9 ksi which corresponds to S,i=23.3 ksi at 100 F. Conservatively the analysis used the
- allowable of either 69.0 ksi which corresponds to Smi=22.98 ksi at 220' F or 69.3 ksi
- which corresponds to S,i=23.1 ksi at 200 F. The use of allowables at either 220 F
- (design temperature from Reference 20) or 200* F is conservative since the goveming loads occur at temperatures below 200 F.
Page 23 of 31 l
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 4.8 Small Bore Piping Small branch piping was analyzed by TES by applying at the branch line connection point a :
displacement equal to twice the maximum dynamic movement of the large bore line. DE&S l calculated new displacements at the connection points and compared them to the existing 1
. qualified displacements. For displacement increases, existing calculated stresses were conservatively increased using bounding displacement ratios. i The maximum branch line stresses for the small bore lines attached to the Core Spray Suction lines are summarized below. These results supersede the results shown in Table 3-3 of 3
Reference 3. !
2" W23-152-16A 20.44 37.50 2" W23-152-16B 26.80 37.50 2" W23-152-17A 20.44 37.50 2" W23-152-17B 26.80 37.50 <
l The maximum branch line stresses for the small bore lines attached to the HPCI Suction lines are summarized below. These results supersede the results shown in Table 3-3 of Reference 3.
Line Stress (ksi) Allowable (ksi) 1" W25-152-18 21.75 36.00 !
3/4" Vent No Change No Change g Page 24 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 5.0 Pipe Support Evaluation 5.1 Codes The torus attached piping supports were evaluated to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Subsection NF,1977 Edition with addenda up to and including Summer
- 78. Additionally anchor bolts and baseplates were evaluated in accordance with Bulletin 79-02, and all stresses in pipe supports were not allowed to exceed yield stresses. This was consistent
. with the original plant unique analysis. Note that the existing torus attached piping support calculations were previously performed in accordance with AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition and were updated to reflect ASME Subsection NF requirements.
l s
i Page 25 of 31
4
. ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplem:nt to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 5.2 Load Combinations Supports were evaluated to the same dynamic load combinations as torus attached piping.
. Summarized below are the load combinations used including DW and Thermal Loads Load Case Dynamic Load Combination Service Level S-1 DW
- S-4 DW * (SRV2 + SSE2)'8 C 2
S-5 DW * (SRV2 + Pre Chug )in C L S-6 DW * (SRV2 + Post Chug )"2 2 C
4- S-7 DW * (SRV2 + Pre Chug + SSE2)u2 2 o l 4
S-8 DW * (SRV2 + Post Chug: + SSE2)u2 D l t S-9 DW * (CO2 + OBE2)u2 D S-10 DW * (SRV + Pool Swell 2 + SSE2)in 'p j S-Il DW
- PS ( O AP) D !
- OBE B
S-14 DW + TE, + THAM, * (SRV2 + Pre Chug2 )'8 C !
S-15 DW + TE, + THAM, * (SRV2 + Post Chug2)"2 C I S-16' DW + TE, + THAM, * (SRV2 + Pre Chug + SSE2)n: 2 p S-17 DW + TE, + THAM, * (SRV2 + Post Chug 2+ SSE2)"2 D S-18 DW + TE, + THAM, * (CO2 + OBE2)"2 D
~
S-19 DW + TE, + THAM, * (SRV2 + Pool Swell 2 + SSE2)in D S-20 DW + TE, + THAM,
- 2) SRV, Pool Swell, CO, Pre Chug, Post Chug are the absolute sum of the torus motion loads plus the submerged structure loads including FSI of CO and Chugging
'3) TE and THAM are normal operating thermal expansion and thermal anchor movements, TEi and THAM, are accident conditions, and TE: and THAM are Post-LOCA conditions l
Page 26 of 31
, . . -.. - . - . - ..~ - - . - - . . - . - . - - - - - -
, ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report
- Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 5.3 Analysis Methodologies
^
The TES evaluation of piping supports was performed using either manual calculations or computer calculations depending on the complexity of the support. Typically the computer
. program STAAD was used by TES for the computerized calculations.
The DE&S evaluation of the RHR, Core Spray, and HPCI supports was done either by comparison to previously qualified loads and load ratios or a complete reanalysis of the support.
Typically the following DEAS QA condition computer programs were used:
GTSTRUDL General Frame Analysis Program NPLATE Baseplate and Anchor bolt analysis i WELDS.XLS Welded Joint Analysis program i l SHRLUGl.XLS Shear Lug IWA Evaluation program 4- STANCHl.XLS IWA Evaluation of Stanchion i
, ELBLUGl.XLS Shear Lug on elbow evaluation program
[ ELBSTANI.XLS Stanchion on elbow evaluation program i
I :
Loads on the backside ofin line piping anchors were determined using BOP criteria (Reference
- 24) which uses 2 times the calculated DW and Thermal loads and 1.41 times the bounding !
seismic loads (dynamic loads from both sides of an anchor can be combined by SRSS).
i '
5.4 Evaluation ofIntegral Welded Attachments i 1
, Paragraph NC-3645 requires that attachments to piping shall be designed so as not to cause i flattening of the pipe, excessive localized bending stresses or harmful thermal gradients in the s
pipe wall. The code does not provide a methodology or criteria for evaluating the effects of
- attachments to piping. Furthermore, the PUAAG (NEDO-24583-1), the Fitzpatrick PUAR and
! its subsequent SER, and NUREG-0661 also do not described a methodology or criteria used to i
evaluate local attachments to piping. The ASME Code, in general, does not limit the ;
i engineer's/ designer's choice of the methods used to meet the code rules. Therefore, to meet the i requirements of NC-3645, Code Cases N-318 and N-392 were chosen as a reasonable method for l the qualification oflocal welded attachments on Class 2 piping. Code Cases N-318 and N-392 l were specifically chosen for the following reasons: they are of the same vintage as the design i l
Code (1977 edition _with addenda through Summer 78) and they are a methodology that the NRC
' has previously accepted. As the Code Cases are being used solely as a method to meet the i
. requirements of the Code of Record, no code reconciliation is required.
I r ;
l i
y . Page 27 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification
]
Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report '
Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 l
, 5.5 Support Modifications Summarized below is a list'of support modifications, including reinforcement, redesign or I
additions.
Support - Description I f.
X-225A-S1 New RHR Strainer Support 1 2 -
X-225A-S2 New RHR Strainer Support l X-225A-S3 New RHR Strainer Support i
X-225B-S1 New RHR Strainer Support
- i. X-225B-S2 New RHR Strainer Support
! X-225B-S3 New RHR Strainer Support c 1 1 X-227A-S1 New Core Spray Strainer Support i
- X-227B-S1 New Core Spray Strainer Support j PFSK-2418 - Core Spray TAP support, added axial pipe restraint 4
PFSK-2454 Core Spray TAP support, added axial pipe restraint PFSK-9169 New HPCI TAP Support at Node 120 ;
l c PFSK-2305 HPCI TAP Support modified from one way to two way support ]
i Page 28 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replac ment Modification i
4 Supplement t.o the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1
- 6.0 References
- 1. NUREG-0661, " Safety Evaluation Report Mark I Containment Long-Term Program,
] Resolution ofGeneric Technical Activity A-7",7/80, Including Supplement 18/82.
j 2. Teledyne Engiacering Services, Technical Report TR-5321-1, " Mark I Containment j Program Plant Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Suppression Chamber for James A.
1 Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant", Revision 1, November 1984.
- 3. Teledyne Engineering Services, Technical Report TR-5321-2, " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Analysis Report of the Toms Attached Piping for James A.
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant", Revision 1, September 1984.
! 4. Letter from D.B. Vassallo (USNRC) to H. C. Pfefferien (GE),
Subject:
Acceptability of i
SRSS Method for Combining Dynamic Responses in Mark I Piping Systems", Dated
, March 10,1983.
l S. NEDO-21888, " Mark I Containment Term Program Load Defmition Report", Revision 2.
I 1
- 6. NEDO 24583-1, " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant
- Unique Analysis Application Guide", Revision 0, October 1979.
- 7. DE&S Calculation A384.F02-21, " Hydrodynamic Effect ofReplacement Core Spray,
' RHR, HPCI and RCIC Strainers on the Adjacent Torus Internal Structures and on the Torus Shell", Revision O.
- 8. DE&S Calculation A384.F02-10," Core Spray Penetration X227A Torus Attached Piping Reanalysis for the Replacement Suction Strainer Assembly", Revision 2.
4 j 9. DE&S Calculation A384.F02-11," Core Spray Penetration X227B Toms Attached Piping
, Reanalysis for the Replacement Suction Strainer Assembly", Revision 2.
- 10. DE&S Calculation A384.F02-12, "RHR Penet ations X225A & B Suction Strainer
- Assembly and Torus Penetration Analysis", Revision 1.
i
- 11. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,1977 Edition.
t
. 12. ASME Code Case N-318, " Procedure for Evaluation of the Design of Rectangular Cross Section Attachments on Class 2 or 3 Piping",1981.
{
- 13. NEDE-24555-P, " Mark I Containment Program Application Guide 1 LOCA Bubble 4
Induced Loads on Submerged Structures", Revision 2, September 1980.
4 i
y Page 29 of 31 i
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1
- 14. NEDd-24555-P, " Mark I Containment Program Application Guide 2 Condensation Oscillation and Chugging Induced Loads on Submerged Structures", Revision 2, 4
September 1980.
1
- 15. NEDE-24555-P, " Mark I Containment Program Application Guide 10 General Topics",
Revision 3, January 1981.
- 16. DE&S Calculation A384.F02-07," Mark I Hydrodynamic Submerged Structure Loads on the Replacement Core Spray, RHR, HPCI and RCIC Suction Strainer Assemblies",
Revision 1. (Preliminary) 8
- 17. DE&S Calculation A384.F02-15," Torus Ring Girder and Shell Local Evaluation for Reaction Loads from the Core Spray and RHR Suction Strainer Assembly Supports", i Revision 0.
l
- 18. NRC Bulletin 96-03, " Potential Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in Boiling Water Reactors," May 1996.
- 19. DE&S General Assembly Drawings," James A. Fitzpatrick Project A38400" a) A384-TORUS," Torus Layout of Strainer Assembly", Revision 1.
b) A384-X225A,"RHR Suction Strainer Assembly Pen. X-225A", Revision 5.
c) A384-X225B, "RHR Suction Strainer Assembly Pen. X-225B", Revision 5; d) A384-X227A,"CS Suction Strainer Assembly Pen. X-227A", Revision 4.
e) A384-X227B, "CS Suction Strainer Assembly Pen. X-227B", Revision 4.
f) A384-X225A-SI,"RHR Strainer Assembly Support X-225A-Sl", Revision 2.
g) A384-X225A-S2,"RHR Strainer Assembly Support X-225A-S2", Revision 2.
h) A384-X225A S3,"RHR Strainer Assembly Support X-225A-S3", Revision 2.
i) A384-X225B-SI,"RHR Strainer Assembly Support X-225B-Sl", Revision 2.
j) A384-X225B-S2,"RHR Strainer Assembly Support X-225B-S2", Revision 2.
k) A384-X2258-S3,"RHR Strainer Assembly Support X-225B-S3", Revision 2.
- 1) A384-X227A-SI,"CS Strainer Assembly Support X-227A-Sl", Revision 2.
m) A384-X227B-S1,"CS Strainer Assembly Support X-227B-Sl", Revision 2.
n) A384-X225-RH, "RHR Penetration 24" Ramshead," Revision 2.
o) A384-X226,"HPCI Suction Strainer Assembly Pen. X-226", Revision 2. =
p) A384-X224, "RCIC Suction Strainer Assembly Pen. X-224", Revision 2. b
- 20. JAF-SPEC-MISC-02871, " Technical Procurement Specification for Residual Heat Removal (RHR), Core Spray (CS), High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI), and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Suction Strainers", New York Power Authority James A.
Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Revision 3.
- 21. GE Report NEDE-24632, " Mark I Containment Program - Cumulative Distribution Functions for Typical Dynamic Responses of a Mark I Torus and Attached Piping Systems", December 1980.
Page 30 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification Supplement to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision 1 22.
' DE&S File No. 64.313.1131," Test Report for Hydrodynamic Inertial Mass Testing of ECCS Suction Strainers" Test Report No. TR-ECCS-RD-01, Digital Structures Inc. of Berkeley California, June 1997, Revision 2.
. Containment Long Term Program - James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Docket 50-333, Dated 12/12/84,
- 24. Design Criteria for Balance of Plant (BOP) Piping Stress and Supports - JAF Nuclear Power Plant, Dated April 1991, Document 18570.00
- 25. ASME Code Case N-392, " Procedure for Evaluation of the Design of Hollow Circular
- Cross Section Attachments on Class 2 or 3 Piping",1983.
- 26. - DE&S Calculation A384.002-13,"HPCI Penetration X226 Torus Attached Piping Reanalysis for the Replacement Suction Strainer Assembly", Revision 0. (Preliminary) f ~ 27. DE&S Report JAF-RPT-MULTI-02921, " Torus Attached Pipir.g Parametric Study for the ECCS Suction Strainer Replacements", Revision 1. (Preliminary)
- 28. DE&S Calculation A384.F02-51," Project Specific Verification of Modified PISTAR Software", Revision 0. (Preliminary)
- 29. DE&S File No. TR-ECCS-GEN-011,"ECCS Suction Strainer Hydrodynamic Test 4
Summary Report," 6/11/98, Revision 0.
b !
1 1
4 1
-v i
i Page 31 of 31
ECCS and RCIC Suction Strainer Replacement Modification SupplIment to the Plant Unique Analysis Report Report No. JAF-RPT-MULTI-03000, Revision i Attachment A Mark Up of PUAR Affected Pages I
1 l
l Page Al of A8 a
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ . _ . _ _ - . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ._
i.
Technical Report TM
- TR-5321-1 6g Revision 1
- 1 i
i n 5.4 Results and Evaluations 1
5.4.1 Ring Girder Web and Flange The controlling load combination for the ring girder web and flange is load case 16 of Table 1; this includes:
^
Pool Swell (zeroA P) + Weight The controlling stresses are-I 1
STRESS STRESS ACTUAL ALLOWABLE LOCATION TYPE STRESS STRESS l
y -
i Web Membrane i Flange Menbrane 9 s j 5.4.2 Weld to Torus Shell The controlling load combination for the shell weld is load case 21 of Table 1. The controlling stresses are:
DBA.C0 + Seismic (SSE) + Weight STRESS STRESS ACTUAL ALLOWABLE LOCATION TYPE STRESS STRESS Column Region Shear 7.64 K/in 8.53 K/in Inside Column Region Shear 8.27 K/in 8.53 K/in Outside --
Saddle Region Shear
\
.)AP- 8ET-#mrt -03 0o0, Rrvis .s o PA6s A2 om Ag
f i -
Technical Report TM R ist n 1 3.3.1 Torus Shell Results of shell stress due to individually applied loads were calculated and maintained en a component stress level until all the load
.' combinations were forrred. Stress intensities were then calculated from these total component-level values.
The controlling load combinations for the shell at Fitz-patrick are Cases 14 and 20 in Table 1, these are:
Case 14 IBA.C0 + SRV + Seismic (SSE) + Pressure + Weight Case 20 DBA.C0 + Pressure + Weight + Seismic (SSE)
These load combinations control all categories of shell stress, although the location of the elements is different for the different types of stress. The following table 'sumarizes the controlling stresses.
Approximate locations of.the controlling stresses are shown in Figure 3-9.
CONTROLLING SHELL STRESSES - FIT 2 PATRICK ACTUAL ALLOWABLE TYPE OF STRESS STRESS STRESS LOCATION (psi) (psi)
Membrane (Pm) Free Shell 13,776 19,300 (Case 20) Element 17 Local (P1) local Shell 28,950 Element 160 \
(Case 14)
Membrane + Free Shell 28,950 Bending Element 19 (Case 20)
Stress Range Local Shell 69,900 (Case 14) Element 148
,h AF-MT -MAD -0 3 @ 3 Rcvisiam o E A6r A3 OP A$
TABLE 3-1 FITZPATRICK E' Y Y '
LARGE BORE TAP RESULTS 5 J, g.
ewa GUX System Penetration Line Size Controlling Maximum Allowable = A, *_,
Name Number __ & Schedule load Case Stress Stress '
e.
Vacuum Relief Line X-202A/f 30" Std. Seismic & SRV 24,029 27,000 Vacuum Relief Line X-202B/G 30" Std. DBA CO 27,926 36,000
- ,, u Reactor Building X-205 20" Sch. 10 Seismic & SRV 21,415 27,000
) >
c 3 Nonnal Vent
"' h RHR Discharge X-210A & X-211A 24" Std. OBA C0 - 31, % 1 36,000 RHR Discharge X-210B & X-2118 24" Std. DBA C0 35,073 36,000 o 3 32,608 36,000 J, m c. RCIC Turbine X-212 8" Sch. 40 (Std) DBA C0 y Q -
Exhaust j' 00 Drain X-213A/B 3" Sch. 40 (Std) DBA CD 31,195 36,000 f
ul HPCI Turbine X-214 20 Sch. 10 DBA Cu 21,139 36,000 Q
g Exhaust .
Vent Purge Outlet X-220 20" Sch. 10 SRV 11,633 27,000
- 25,146 36,000 j RCIC Pump Suction X-224 / 6" Sch. 40 (Std) SRV + PS2 26,407 36,000 f RHR Pump Suction X-225A " ' 20" Sch. 10 SRV + PS2 h RHR Pump Suction X-225B " 20" Sch. 10 DBA CO 35,643 36,000 -
1P01 Pump Suction X-226 16" Std. S 9, 36,000 d Core Spray X-227A / 16" Std. C 3, 36,000 Pump Suction Core Spray X-2278 / 16" S td. 1 6 36,000 Pump Suction -
- .- .-. .. - - . . , , , , , ,,,, ,,, .,, n,m
TABLE 3-3 E E!Y FITZPATRICK 5. & 9 m ws BRANCH LINE PIPE STRESSES kp-N.
- 2 Branch Line TAP TAP Branch Line Maximum Allowable $
Designation System Penetration Dia./Sch. Stress Stress 3 1" W25-152-18 HPCI Pump Suction X-226 1" Sch. 80 (XS) 36,000 d
3/4" Vent HPCI Pump Suction X-226 3/4" Sch. 80 (XS) (1) 1" W23-152-22A Core Spray Pump Suction X-227A 1" Sch. 80 (XS) (2) o y 2" W23-152-16A Core Spray Pump Suction X-227A 2" Sch. 80 (XS) 37,500 y G 2" W23-152-17A Core Spray Pump Suction X-227A 2" Sch. 80 (XS) 37,500 ,
H ~'I IG
, i 1" W23-152-228 Core Spray Pump Suction X-2278 1" Sch. 80 (XS) (2) e 2" W23-152-16B Core Spray Pump Suction X-2278 2" Sch. 80 (XS) 37,500
- H 2" W23-152-178 Core Spray Pump Suction X-2278 2" Sch. 80 (XS) 37,500 b 1" WD-152-48 HPCI Turbine Exhaust X-214 1" Sch. 80 (XS) 15,748 36,000 03/4" Drain RCIC Pump Suction X-224 3/4" Sch. 80 (XS) (4)
O 3/4" Vent RCIC Pump Suction X-224 3/4" Sch. 80 (XS) (4) kc 3/4" Drain RCIC Pump Suction
~
X-224 3/4" Sch. 80 (XS) (3)
E RCIC Pump Suction X-224 2" Sch. 80 (XS) (3)
{2"W22-152-11
_. 1" W20-302-110 RCIC Pump Suction X-224 1" Sch. 80 (XS) (1) 14" Drain RHR Pump Suction X-225A 1 " Sch. 80 (XS) (2)
Es 5
~
,s
'b hi M Q[ TABLE 3-4 FITZPATRICK EYM ROsQ 1aa g
0T PUMP. AND VALVE EVAllRTION y"g 3 6 Max. Pipe s i.
-"~
l d Component Component TAP TAP Stress at Allowsble E
_Dasignation Type System Penetration Component Pipe Stress
]
V8 -1 Valve Primary Cont. X-202A,F 11,771 18,000 Vacuum Brkr. Pip.
VGW-15A Gate Valve Condensate X-228 8,927 18,000 Drain Line VGW-ISAN Gate Valve Steam Line & X-212 14,575 18,000 VCW-ISAM Check Valve Vent From 14,320 18,000 VCW-15AN Check Valve RCIC Pump 16,799 18,000 13-1U-12 RCIC Turbine 8,680 18,000 5, MOV -78 Mtr. Oper. Valve Core Spray X-2278 18,000 14P-18 Core Spray Pump Pump Suction 18,000 VGW-ISAN Gate Valve (East Lead) 18,000 3" Globe Valve Globe Vaive Drain Line X-213A/B 10,796 18,000 1" Globe Valve Globe Valve 1,459 18,000 27A0V-117 Air Oper. Valve Air Piping X-205 13,483 18,000 270A0V-118 Air Oper. Valve 12.537 18,000 V8-2 Valve Primary Cont. X-2028,G 13.294 18,000 A0V-101A Air Oper. Valve Vacuum Breaker 3,444 18,000 A0W-101B Air Oper. Valve Piping 3,471 18,000 VB-6 Valve 1,163 18,000 VB -7 Valve 1,171 18,000 VGW-ISAN Gate Valve Steam Linc & X-214 11,587 18,000 VCW-ISAN Check Valve Vent itPCI Pump 10,488 18,000 VCW-ISAN Check Valve 9,870 18,000 23TU-2 IFCI Turbine 664 18,000
l a
%li$
ib %r TABLE 3-4 (CONTihtED) yf ]I g C FITZPATRICK g;ij ;;'
PLW AND VALVE EVALLIATION b
h o*'n D Max. Pipe Stress at Allowable h E Component Component TAP TAP Designation Type . System Penetration Component Pipe Stress B ,
Mir. Oper. Valve RHR Piping X-2258 8,498 18,000 MOV-1518 Mtr. Oper. Valve 12,663 18,000 MOV -138 Pump Suction 11,423 18,000 10P-3B Mtr. Oper. Valve 8,798 18,000 MOV-130 Pump Suction 8,824 18,000 10P-3D Mtr. Oper. Valve 5,167 18,000 MOV-150 Mir. Oper. Valve 7,871 18,000 MOV-158 Mtr. Oper. Valve RHR Discharge X-210A/ 9,400 18,000 MV-34 A Mtr. Oper. Valve Spray Header X-211A 7,190 18,000 i MOV-39A mV-26A Mtr. Oper. Valve 6,935 18,000 0 VCW-30AN Check Valve 5,136 18,000 Core Spray Pump 6,281 18,000 14P-1A MV-27A Mtr. Oper. Valve 11,162 18,000 MOV-25A Mtr. Oper. Valve 9,695 18,000 MV-38A Ntr. Oper. Valve 2,719 18,000 MV-348 Mtr. Oper. Valve RHR Discharge X-2106/ 13,263 18,000 MOV-398 Mtr. Oper. Valve Spray Header X-211B 6,636 18,000 Mtr. Oper. Valve 12,308 18,000 MV-268 Check Valve 5,136 18,000 12" Valve 18,000 14P-18 Core Spray Pump 6,281 MOV-268 Mtr. Oper. Valve 5,096 18,000 MV-318 Mtr. Oper. Valve 7,827 18,000 MV-278 Mtr. Oper. Valve 10,168 18,000 MOV-256 Mtr. Oper. Valve 14,800 18,000 WV -388 Mtr. Oper. Valve 1J3 18,000 MOV-7A Mtr. Oper. Valve Core Spray 5 18,000 14P-1A Core Spray Pump Pump Suction , 18,000 VGW-ISAN Gate Valve (West Lead) ,1 I 18,000 VCW-ISAN Check Valve I
18,000
Whp ~
t 7s # .
{% g TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED) g h FITZPATRICK ,yy PUMP AND VALVE EVAllRTION l
f GUX g Max. Pipe = A, * .
. Component Component TAP TAP Stress at Allowable ~
m .
l Designation Type System Penetration Component Pipe Stress l MOV-151A Mtr. Oper. Valve RHR Piping X-225A 7,611 18,000 mV-13A Mtr. Oper. Valve 6,031 18,000 l
MOV-15A Mtr. Oper. Valve 4,555 18,000 i MOV-13C Mtr. Oper. Valve 8,038 18,000 !
MOV-15C Mtr. Oper. Valve 4,223 18,000 10P-3C Pump 11,929 18,000 10P-3A Pump 11,720 18,000 t
27A0V-116 Air Oper. Valve Air Cooling X-220 5,726 18,000 27A0V-115 Air Oper. Valve 6,158 18,000 ,
. f
/ < J, MV-58 Mtr. Oper. Valve WCI Piping ~ y 22'6 10 7' 18,000 ? :
VCW-15AN Check Valve / 18,000 MV-57 Mtr. Oper. Valve . 18,000 t 23P-1 . Booster Pump , 5- l 18,000 MOV-17 Mtr. Oper. Valve 8,379 18,000 ;
VCW-15AN Check Valve a, 7 18,000 MOV-41 Mtr. Oper. Valve Suction Line X-224 13,308 18,000 i VCW-15AN Check Valve to RCIC Pump 3,863 18,000 j Mtr. Oper. Valve 6,824 MOV-39 18,000 VGW-ISAN Gate Valve 5,171 18,000 13P-1 RCIC Pump 3,351 18,000 VCW-ISAN Check Valve 2,806 18,000 MOV-18 Mtr. Oper. Valve 2,872 18,000 MOV-36 Mtr. Oper. Valve 79* 18,000 :
A0V-71A Air Oper. Valve 5* 18,000 l MV-21A Mtr. Oper. Valve 14* 18,000 1 4Iark 1 dynamic stress only - values remote from torus - wt, thermal, & seismic not available '
i
. Technical Report i Revff n 1 i TABLE 3-6 FITZPATRICK 4
TAP PENETRATION STRESS RESlLTS - LARGE BORE PIPING Primary Stress gcondaryStress Penetration Calculated Calculated i Number Max. Stress Allowable Max. Stress Allowable X-202A & F 15,715 19,300 34,742 69,900 l X-2028 & G 16,200 19,300 22,642 69,900 X-205 12,939 19,300 28,646 69,900 X-210A 12,610 19,300 54,034 69,90C X-2108 12,536 19,300 56,616 69,900 X-211A 12,436 15,100 43,986 69,900 l X-2118 12,436 15,100 43,986 69,900 X-212 13,728 15,100 45,137 69,9.i0 ,
X-213A & B 11,774 15,100 34,942 69,900 X-214 11,107 19,300 44,266 69,900 X-220 12,934 19,300 46,621 69,900 X-224 ! 13,877 15,100 41,649 69,900 )
X-225A / 32 Sif,' ,900 .
X-225B v , ,3 4 988 9, O X-226 13, 3 19, ,4 69, 0 /t X-227A / 1 , 18 1 300 7, 5 90 0 X-227B / . 13x81 _
93 57 05 9, 0 X-228 13,481 15,100 56,982 69,900 4
4,,,
- MF - APT- MucTl -0 30 o0 , 8ttu nion PA6c As oF AB
\
Attachmsnt 5 to JAFP-98-0306 Basis for NRCB 96-03 Commitment Chanae i
l l
l 1
l l
l I
f l
II 1
i 1
l New York Power Authority JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Docket No. 50-333 DPR-59
-1
1 Attichm:nt 5 to JAFP-98-0306 Basis for NRCB 96-03 Commitment Chanae The Authority is revising a commitment made in response (JAFP-96-0439, Reference 1) to NRC Bulletin (NRCB) 96-03 (Reference 2). Specifically, the Authority committed to provide a report to the NRC confirming completion and summarizing actions taken relative to NRCB 96-03 no later than 30 days after startup from the upcoming Refueling Outage. The Authority is now extending the due date associated with this commitment for, at the most, one refueling outage ( i.e., Fall 2000). The current licensing basis (i.e.,50% strainer blockage) will be in effect until that time. This commitment change is needed in order to leave a small quantity of microporous insulation in the drywell, while awaiting test results associated with this type of insulation. Significant dose savings are estimated to result from leaving the microporous insulation in place.
Approximately 18 cubic feet of microporous insulation (i.e., Min-K and Microtherm) is currently installed on the drywell piping at the pipe whip restraints associated with the Reactor Recirculation, Core Spray, Main Steam, and Feedwater systems. While experimental evidence exists suggesting that Min-K debris without fibrous debris can cause significant head loss, there is currently no strainer head loss test data available for the effect of microporous insulation debris in combination with large quantities of fibrous debris, which are the conditions relevant to FitzPatrick Based on the projected dose savings (i.e., approximately 25 person-rem) due to the work involved in removing the microporous insulation, the thermal efficiency gained by leaving the microporous insulation in the drywell, and the testing (microporous insulation with large quantities fibrous insulation) that the Authority will sponsor, the Authority believes good cause is present to extend the above noted commitment for, at the most, one refueling outage (i.e., Fall 2000). The Authority still intends to install large capacity passive suction strainers for the Residual Heat Removal (RHR), and Core Spray systems during the upcoming refueling outage (currently scheduled to begin in October 1998). .The suction strainers for the High ,
Pressure Coolant injection (HPCI), and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) systems are also scheduled to be replaced during the upcoming refueling outage. In addition, the existing mineral wool insulation in the drywell is scheduled for replacement during the upcoming outage.
Microporous insulation is composed of amorphous particles, ranging in size from approximately 1 to 30 micro-meters, and relatively small fibers (i.e., about 5 micro-meters in diameter and shorter than the hole size opening in the replacement strainer surface).
Following a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) in which the microporous insulation becomes debris, the perforated plate holes in the ECCS suppression pool strainers may become partially plugged if this insulation reaches the strainers. This has the effect of increasing the head loss across the perforated plate even in the absence of a significant debris layer on the strainer surface. With a greater perforated plate head loss, the available Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) at the ECCS pumps would decrease.
1 Based on preliminary strainer head loss calculations that used conservative estimates of microporous debris quantities and did not consider the potentially beneficial effect of large fibrous debris quantities on microporous insulation head loss, the Authority had originally decided to replace the microporous insulation with Nukon" insulation. Nukon is a fibrous insulation that would form a debris bed if it reached the strainers. This debris bed does not plug the holes in the perforated plate, but allows some water to pass through. Thus, the head loss resulting from this debris bed would be less than that of a plugged strainer. !
i 1
i Page 1 of 2 l l
l l
Att: chm:nt 5 to JAFP-98-0306 Basis for NRC8 96-03 Commitment Chanae Since this original decision, the Authority realized that there could be a significant reduction in dose if the microporous insulation is not replaced at all. Microporous insulation makes up only a small fraction of the 8 different types of insulation found inside the FitzPatrick drywell. If the microporous insulation is not replaced at all, the Authority estimates approximately 25 person-rem in dose savings.
To provide a better basis for making a decision with respect to long-term microporous i insulation replacement, the Authority will sponsor a test to aid in determining the effects of microporous insulation debris in the presence of large quantities of fibrous debris. While this decision is being made, the current licensing basis (i.e., 50% strainer blockage) will be in effect. The Authority will inform the NRC when the test will be performed so that they may attend, if desired. The Authority accepted test results will be made available to the NRC.
The revised commitment is as follows:
- 1. An Authority sponsored test of microporous insulation will be performed. If an Authority accepted test report and resultant calculation results show the need to replace the microporous insulation, then it will be replaced during the R14/C15 RFO.
The Authority will provide a written report to the NRC confirming completion and summarizing actions taken relative to NRCB 96-03 30 days after startup from
- R14/C15 RFO. The current licensing basis (i.e., 50% strainer bhmkage) will be in effect until that time.
- 2. An Authority sponsored test of microporous insulation will be performed. If an :
Authority accepted test report and resultant calculation results show that the microporous insulation can remain, then a written report will be provided to the NRC confirming completion and summarizing actions taken relative to NRCB 96-03 90 days after Authority acceptance of the test report but prior to commencing the R14/C15 RFO. The current licensing basis (i.e.,50% strainer blockage) will be in effect until that time.
References
- 1. NYPA Letter, M. J. Colomb to the NRC, " Response to NRC Bulletin 96-03," (JAFP-96-0439),' dated October 29,1996
. 2. NRC Bulletin 96-03, " Potential Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in Boiling Water Reactors," dated May 6,1996 I
i l
l I
1 l
Page 2 of 2
AttrchmInt 6 ts JAFP-98-0306 1
l LIST OF COMMITMENTS Commitment No. Description Due Date .
l JAFP-98-0306-01 The torus will be desludged and the R14/C15 RFO I ECCS suction strainers will be inspected.
JAFP-98-0306-02 An Authority sponsored test of 30 days after startup microporous insulation will be from the R14/C15 performed. if an Authority accepted RFO test report and resultant calculation i
results show the need to replace the j microporous insulation, then it will be
]
replaced during the R14/C15 RFO. l The Authority will provide a written l report to the NRC confirming completion and summarizing actions j taken relative to NRCB 96-03. The '
current licensing basis (i.e., 50%
strainer blockage) will be in effect until that time.
JAFP-98-0306-03 An Authority sponsored test of 90 days after ;
microporous insulation will be Authority acceptance {
performed. If an Authority accepted of the test report but test report and resultant calculation prior to commencing I results show that the microporous the R14/C15 RFO.
insulation can remain in place, then a written report will be provided to the NRC confirming completion and summarizing actions taken relative to i NRCB 96-03. The current licensing basis (i.e., 50% strainer blockage) will i be in effect until that time.
n, I